EU WASTE POLICY - European Commissionec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/story_book.pdfEU WASTE POLICY European Commission Story book waste12.indd 1 13/12/2005 10:03:14 Story book waste12.indd

EU WASTE POLICY

European Commission

Story book waste12.indd 1 13/12/2005 10:03:14


3

Table of contents

1. Introduction...........................................................................................................................................4

2. Why a thematic strategy on waste?.....................................................................................................6

2.1. Waste: an environmental issue .............................................................................................................. ....6

2.2. The amount of waste is increasing and is not always recovered efficiently ...............................................6

3. Policy context.......................................................................................................................................8

3.1. History of waste policy ...............................................................................................................................8

3.2. Current policy framework .........................................................................................................................10

3.3. Actions agreed for implementation in the future ......................................................................................12

3.4. Implementation issues .............................................................................................................................12

4. Outstanding issues ...............................................................................................................................13

5. The development of the Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste ................14

5.1. The resources/product/waste triangle .....................................................................................................14

5.2. The preliminary communication: first concepts and first round of consultations .....................................15

5.3. Further consultation.............................................................................................................................................16

5.4. The Impact Assessment Report ..............................................................................................................18

6. Building blocks of the Thematic Strategy ...........................................................................................18

6.1. Waste policy will help reduce the environmental impacts of using resources .........................................18

6.2. Economic instruments ..............................................................................................................................20

6.3. Further landfill bans............................................................................................................................................20

6.4. Waste prevention.................................................................................................................................................20

6.5. Encouraging recycling and recovery ........................................................................................................21

6.5.1. The waste hierarchy ........................................................................................................................216.5.2. Material or product? ........................................................................................................................216.5.3. The distinction between recovery and disposal......................................................................................22

6.6. Simplification: fine tuning to improve implementation ..............................................................................22

6.6.1. Streamlining waste legislation .........................................................................................................226.6.2. The definition of waste .....................................................................................................................236.6.3. The distinction between recovery and disposal ..............................................................................24

6.7. Why common EU waste standards and an EU recycling market? ...........................................................24

6.7.1. Advantages of common standards ..................................................................................................256.7.2. Risks of the current approach as regards revision of the Waste Shipment Regulation ...................256.7.3. Various EU measures could be combined to build a set of common waste standards ...................26

6.8. The relationship between waste hierarchy and impact thinking ...............................................................26

6.8.1. Recycling and recovery ................... .......................................................................................................26

7. Next steps...........................................................................................................................................28

8. Conclusion: Waste policies must contribute to improved resource use ........................................29


4

1. INTRODUCTION

European environment policy has evolved signifi cantly since the 1970s. It has given the EU cleaner air and water, and a better understanding of our dependence on a healthy environment. It is one of the policy areas most supported by EU citizens, who recognise that environmental problems go beyond national and regional borders and can only be resolved through concerted action at EU and international level. From an initial focus on single pollutants and impacts it has moved into an integration phase, with the emphasis on understanding and addressing the pressures on the environment and examining the eff ects of diff erent policies and behaviour patterns.

Seven thematic strategies are being proposed by the Commission during 2005 and 2006. Th ey address various environmental areas and form part of this new approach to environmental policy-making. Th ey are based on a deep review of existing policy, and required several years of scientifi c and economic analysis together with extensive consultation. Th ey exemplify the better regulation approach of the Commission and will make an important contribution to sustainable development and the agenda set in Lisbon to make the EU the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world.

Moreover, the strategies are key mechanisms for delivering the objectives set out in the Sixth Environmental Action Programme (6th EAP)1 adopted by the Council and Parliament for the period 2002-2012. Th e strategies - and the 2005 delivery date - are specifi ed in the 6th EAP and fall under its four main priorities: climate change, biodiversity, health, and resource use. Th e seven strategies cover:

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

1 Decision 1600/2002/EC laying down the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme; OJ L 242, 10.9.2002, p. 1


5

The thematic strategies provide broad analyses of issues by theme. They look at pressures and impacts on the environment, which often cut across these themes. They examine the links between environmental impacts and sectoral policies. They look at a broad range of options and a varied policy mix, including the use of market-based instruments, technology and innovation to deal with the problems identified in a strategic and effective manner. They take a longer-term perspective, setting the framework for Community and Member State action for the next two decades, i.e. they propose strategic objectives, and explore short- and medium-term measures where appropriate, thus helping to meet the EU’s global commitments.

Each strategy takes the form of a package comprised of:

(1) an overall approach towards the thematic issue presented in a Communication that highlights issues and proposes solutions;

(2) legislative proposals for some of the strategies;

(3) an impact assessment.

Each strategy is the result of a thorough development process. To begin with there is a preliminary communication – a kind of Green Paper - that sets out issues and possible approaches to dealing with them. These documents are then subject to extensive consultation in expert working groups, in the impact assessment process, and on the internet. A broad range of stakeholders are consulted: Member States, academics, business and trade associations, individual companies, NGOs and other representatives of civil society. This process culminates in policy proposals that are knowledge-based and practical.

The thematic strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste (“the Strategy”) was adopted by the European Commission on 21 December 2005. Its roots are in the 6th EAP (see Box 1 below). It was accompanied by a detailed impact assessment and a legislative proposal to amend and combine the EU’s framework legislation on waste. The purpose of this summary brochure is to describe the process leading to the adoption of these documents and to summarise their content.

Box 1. Sixth Environment Action Programme and the Thematic Strategy the prevention and recycling of waste.

The Sixth Environment Action Programme (6th EAP) is a programme of Community action on the environment with key objectives covering a period of ten years.

The priorities of the 6th EAP are climate change, nature and biodiversity, health and quality of life, and natural resources and waste.

The 6th EAP develops a vision integrating resource, product and waste policies. It calls for the development of seven thematic strategies including a strategy on the sustainable use of natural resources and a strategy on the recycling of waste. The scope of the recycling strategy was later expanded to cover both prevention and recycling of waste.


6

2. WHY A THEMATIC STRATEGY ON WASTE? 2.1. Waste: an environmental issue

Waste is clearly an environmental issue. Every time a rotten lettuce is thrown in the bin, a broken toy discarded, or industrial scrap carted away, resources are being used up. This all contributes to the environmental pressures on our planet. And once a product is thrown away, and becomes waste, a whole new set of impacts are involved in treating it. But the environmental impacts are only part of the waste story. It is impossible to examine them in isolation without looking at economic and social factors.

Actions to prevent waste, for example, can create - or lessen - constraints on the consumer, can create or reduce costs for business, can create or remove jobs. These different impacts are not always easily predictable, and do not always pull in the same direction. Moreover, waste can genuinely be described as a local to global issue. A recycling scheme organised by a local authority can have an impact thousands of kilometres away, as the products of the scheme are traded on the international market. Waste is complex – difficult to grasp, difficult to gather good statistics on, and difficult to regulate and manage.

All of this means that waste is an issue that has an impact on a very wide range of stakeholders. It is a significant issue for many businesses, who have an economic interest in reducing the amount of waste they produce, and are concerned by how waste is regulated. It affects a wide range of public authorities and organisations, from the smallest town council to international organisations. The management of waste accounts for a significant number of jobs in the economy. It is one of the most visible environmental issues for European citizens as they are directly involved in the efforts to reduce the impacts of waste, and are directly affected by pollution from poor handling and disposal of waste.

Because waste is associated with things that are no longer wanted, and because of the long history of mismanagement, waste does not have a good reputation. It is viewed in generally negative terms as a problem, a cost, a pollutant. Yet more recently the waste business and waste impacts have been changing. A gap is opening up between the perception of waste as a significant environmental problem - something to be strictly controlled and disposed of as cheaply as possible - and the increasing evidence that waste can be a resource to be exploited.

The last thirty years have seen a revolution in the way that waste is handled. Firstly, the environmental impacts of waste management and to a certain extent waste generation are increasingly under control. The basic regulatory structure is in place, and its enforcement is improving. Secondly, the economics of waste have changed beyond recognition. Waste streams that businesses would have had to pay to be taken away a decade ago, are now being sold for increasing amounts of money. Business innovation has transformed the technology available for the handling of waste. This means that although waste still has negative environmental and social impacts, it should no longer be seen as one of the most serious environmental issues when compared with climate change or biodiversity loss. The way we use resources in the context of sustainable production and consumption remains crucial, but it cannot be tackled through waste policy alone.

The aim of the Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste is to adapt the EU waste policy approach to this new reality. The legislative proposals with it are a first move towards adapting the regulatory framework, to give a legal structure that is flexible and promotes a recycling society – a society that avoids wastage and uses the resources that are found in waste.

2.2. The amount of waste is increasing and is not always recovered efficientlyWaste generation in the EU is estimated at about 1.3 billion tonnes per year. This includes waste from manufacturing (427 million tonnes), from energy production and water supply (127 million tonnes), from the construction sector (510 million tonnes), and municipal waste (241 million tonnes). In addition significant amounts of waste are produced by agriculture, forestry, fishery, mining, quarrying, and the service and public sectors; however, there are no good estimates of the quantities.

Waste generation in general is increasing at rates comparable to economic growth. For example, between 1998 and 2002 hazardous waste generation increased by 13% to reach 58.4 million tonnes,


7

i.e. 129 kg per capita, whilst gross value added grew by 10%. Both GDP and municipal waste grew by 19% between 1995 and 2003. The manufacturing sector produces about 40% of all hazardous waste generated.

These upward trends in waste generation are expected to continue, with greater increases in the new Member States due to stronger growth.

These figures are averages for the 25 EU Member States and hide significant differences, not least between the 15 original States and the 10 new ones. On the one hand, municipal waste generation in the new Member States is much lower (in the 300 – 350 Million tonne range) and has remained stable or slightly declined; on the other hand, the ratio of manufacturing waste to gross value added is ten times as high as in the EU-15.

EU-wide statistics on waste treatment are available only for municipal waste. Box 2 shows that the proportion of municipal waste sent to landfill has been declining over the year but this has been offset almost completely by the increase in the waste generated and as a result landfill is reducing only slowly.The picture for recycling of municipal waste is more positive: the figure nearly doubled between 1995 and 2003 to reach 82.3 million tonnes. Incineration is slowly increasing and is generating about 8 million tonnes oil equivalent of energy.

For manufacturing waste several EU-15 Member States report high rates of recovery and recycling, with landfill rates close to 10%. In the EU-10 this waste is mostly landfilled.

��

Box 2. Treatment of municipal waste.


8

3. POLICY CONTEXT

3.1. History of waste policy

Th e history of environmental policy in the EU begins with waste policy. In the 1970s and 1980s a number of problems and scandals related to the handling of waste alerted policy-makers to the potential impact that poorly managed waste could have upon the environment and human health. See Box 3.

Box 3. Th e Seveso Waste Shipment scandal

In 1983, 41 barrels of dioxin waste turned up in an abandoned abattoir in Northern France. Th ey contained heavily In 1983, 41 barrels of dioxin waste turned up in an abandoned abattoir in Northern France. Th ey contained heavily In 1983, 41 barrels of dioxin waste turned up in an abandoned

contaminated waste materials from a chemical plant in the abattoir in Northern France. Th ey contained heavily contaminated waste materials from a chemical plant in the abattoir in Northern France. Th ey contained heavily

town of Seveso, Italy, resulting from a chemical accident in contaminated waste materials from a chemical plant in the town of Seveso, Italy, resulting from a chemical accident in contaminated waste materials from a chemical plant in the

1976. Th e toxic waste had been transported to the border town of Seveso, Italy, resulting from a chemical accident in 1976. Th e toxic waste had been transported to the border town of Seveso, Italy, resulting from a chemical accident in

safely, but had then disappeared. When eventually located, 1976. Th e toxic waste had been transported to the border safely, but had then disappeared. When eventually located, 1976. Th e toxic waste had been transported to the border

the barrels had been lost in France for over eight months.safely, but had then disappeared. When eventually located, the barrels had been lost in France for over eight months.safely, but had then disappeared. When eventually located,

Th e Member States began taking national measures to control and manage waste, which then led to the Waste Framework Directive and the Hazardous Waste Directive, both adopted in 1975, and later to the Waste Shipment Regulation. Th ese three pieces of legislation put in place the basis of the regulatory structure on waste. Th ey defi ne waste and other key concepts, ensure waste is handled without causing damage to the environment or human health, and impose controlled conditions for moving waste throughout the EU.

In the late 1980s, a tightening of environmental regulations in industrialised countries led to a dramatic rise in the cost of hazardous waste disposal. Searching for cheaper ways to get rid of the wastes, “toxic traders” began shipping hazardous waste to developing countries and to Eastern Europe. When this activity was revealed, international outrage led to the drafting and adoption in 1989 of the Basel Convention, a multilateral environmental agreement. Th e Convention addresses cleaner production, hazardous waste minimisation and controls on the movement of these wastes, and, in combination with work done by the OECD, meant that a number of unacceptable ways of dealing with waste, notably involving discharge at sea, were abandoned.

However, the fi rst EU Directives did not specify the environmental emission parameters for the various waste management options that were considered to be acceptable: landfi ll, incineration and recycling. Th is proved to be the weak point in terms of environmental damage from waste, as was shown by a number of problems involving pollution from incinerators or landfi lls, and from certain recycling plants.

Most of these gaps were fi lled by the Landfi ll Directive, fi nally adopted in 2001, and by the Waste Incineration Directive of 2000 and its precursor legislation. Standards were set in terms of pollution into the air or into groundwater. In addition, the 1996 Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC), which introduces a permit system to tackle pollution from industrial and agricultural facilities, sets standards for a number of waste-related activities, as well as for plants where waste can be used, such as cement kilns.


9

Prevent waste in the first place

Re-use the product

Recycle or compost the material

Recover the energy (by incinerating)

Dispose of the product (in a landfill)

Box 4 - THE WASTE HIERARCHY

Best option

Worst option

The next major step was to help improve the management of waste, and in particular to promote recycling, re-use and energy recovery over the disposal of waste. The 1996 Waste Strategy Communication from the European Commission:

• reinforced the notion of a waste hierarchy (see Box 4)• re-affirmed the “polluter pays” principle with regard to waste (so that those who produce waste

should have to pay the cost of treatment)• developed the concept of priority waste streams.

There were waste streams where current practices had a high environmental impact, or where it had proved particularly difficult to organise the funding of recycling despite the clear environmental benefits. Over the last ten years or so this has resulted in legislation on packaging and packaging waste, on end-of-life vehicles and on waste electrical and electronic equipment.


10

3.2. Current policy frameworkThe result of this work is that over thirty years the common set of general principles and control procedures necessary to ensure a high level of protection of the environment and human health across the Community has now been established. The graph below shows all the legislation adopted.

The environmental impacts of waste treatment have been reduced in recent years through legislative measures. This trend will be reinforced though three recently adopted directives: the directive on integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC),2 the landfill directive3 and the incineration directive4.Because these directives allow transitional periods for existing installations, their full environmental benefits have not yet been achieved. Nevertheless, implementation of this legislation means that during this decade the waste management sector will make considerable progress towards more stringent environmental standards. For example, some of the problems of greatest concern associated with waste treatment installations, such as emissions of dioxins from municipal waste incinerators, will be largely solved through implementation of the incineration directive. There are no consolidated reports covering the EU that quantify the fall in dioxin emissions from incinerators, but some countries are starting to publish evidence of reductions. For example, Germany reports that emissions of dioxins from incinerators fell from 400 grams to less than 0.5 grams a year and now represent less than 1% of total dioxin emissions. Similarly, the EEA estimates that EU emissions of greenhouse gases from waste management will decrease significantly from 1990 to 2010, principally due to implementation of the landfill directive, which more than offsets the emission increases that are expected from the growth in quantities of waste5. The most recent assessments show that greenhouse gas emissions from waste management dropped from a total of 141 million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2eq) in 1990 to 97 MtCO2eq in 2003. Most of this reduction - 90% - is the result of decreased emissions of methane from landfills and there should be further substantial reductions in coming years.

Waste Framework Directive(Dir.75/442/EEC

Waste Streams

Waste Treatment Operations

Landfill(99/31/EC)

Sewage Sludge

Dir. 86/278/EEC

Batteries and Accumulators

Dir. 91/157/EEC &93/86/EEC

COM(2003)723

Packaging and

Packaging Waste

Dir. 94/62/EC

PCBsDir.96/59/EC

End-of-life VehiclesDir 2000/53 EC

Hazardous Waste DirectiveDir.91/689/EEC

Waste Shipment Regulation(Reg. (EEC) 259/93)

Framework Legislation

Incineration89/369 & 429 (MW) 94/67 (HW)

Replaced by 2000/76/EC

Mining Waste

Com (2003)319

Waste oils

Dir 75/439/EEC

Titanium Dioxide

Dir 78/176/EEC

Waste electric

and electronic equipment

Dir.2002/95EC

Restriction of

HazardousSubstances

Dir.2002/95EC

Box 3 Box 5 –– EU waste legislationEU waste legislation

2 Council directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p.26.

3 Council directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, OJ L 182, 16.7.1999, p.1.

4 Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste, OJ L 332, 28.12.2000, p.91.

5 See EEA, 2002: Analysis and comparison of national and EU-wide projections of greenhouse gas emissions, Topic Report 1/2002, Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.


11

Implementation of the landfill directive will be a major driver during the current decade for the development of waste management policies at national level, including efforts to promote the diversion of waste towards material recycling and biological treatment6. Particularly important in this context are the restrictions on landfilling introduced by the directive, in particular the reduction in the amount of biodegradable waste going to landfill and prohibition of the landfilling of certain waste types, including liquid wastes and tyres. Moreover, the stricter environmental standards introduced by the landfill and incineration directives will to a certain extent promote the diversion of waste towards material recycling.

Better management of certain problematic waste streams has been achieved through specific Community directives addressing important hazardous wastes such as waste oils7, PCBs/PCTs8 and batteries9. Community waste legislation restricts the use of heavy metals in a number of products, and will take this further, aiming at qualitative prevention. Recycling and recovery targets have been set for some key complex waste flows, i.e. packaging,10 end-of-life vehicles (ELVs)11 and waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE)12. Such targets are necessary where separate collection and recycling are not profitable under free market conditions but are beneficial from a societal point of view. Although there is generally much debate about which targets to adopt, once adopted they provide the legal certainty and stability necessary to allow the recycling industry to programme investments in the knowledge that there will be a demand for recycling services.

In addition, the principle of producer responsibility that was introduced into EU waste policy back in 1996 has also provided a stable source of financing to offset the cost disadvantage of recycling versus energy recovery and landfill. While the current packaging directive is not based on this principle, almost all Member States have chosen to implement it at least partly on the basis of producer responsibility, although there are some exceptions, such as Denmark and the Netherlands, where financing comes mostly from the municipalities and from waste charges and taxes13. Both the ELV directive and the WEEE directive explicitly include an element of producer responsibility. Producer responsibility has also had a positive impact upon the way that products are designed. By placing the costs of recycling principally with producers, it encourages them to design their products differently to make recycling easier and therefore less expensive. Hence we now have cars that are designed to be dismantled, and packaging that is thinner and made of one type of plastic rather than two or more.

Finally, the widespread use of separate collection systems is helping to achieve the objectives of Community directives on specific waste streams, especially for end-of-life products which would otherwise enter the municipal solid waste stream.

6 Biological treatment includes composting, anaerobic digestion and mechanical/biological treatment.

7 Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils, OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p.23.

8 Council Directive 96/59/EC of 16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT), OJ L 243, 24.9.1996, p.31.

9 Council Directive 91/157/EEC of 18 March 1991 on batteries and accumulators containing certain dangerous substances, OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p.38.

10 European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste, OJ L 30, 3.2.1994, p.1.

11 Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of-life vehicles, OJ L 269, 21.10.2000, p.34.

12 Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 27 January 2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE)- Joint declaration of the

European Parliament, the Council and the Commission relating to Article 9, OJ L 37, 13.2.2003, p. 24

13 See Commission Communication COM (2001) 729 final of 7.12.2001, p. 11:

“Upgrading the investment services directive”.


12

A Decade for ChangeIncineration Incineration emission emission limitslimits

Hazardous Hazardous landfillslandfills Electronic Electronic

waste + waste + End of life End of life vehicle vehicle targetstargets

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 202004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2015 201615 2016

IPPC IPPC permitspermits

Packaging Packaging targetstargets

NonNon--hazardous hazardous landfillslandfills

Landfill Landfill diversion diversion

Final Final landfill landfill diversiondiversion

PCBs PCBs destroyeddestroyed

2005: Thematic Strategy2005: Thematic Strategy

Box 6. A decade for change.

3.3. Actions agreed for implementation in the futureAs well as immediate actions, a number of the directives that have been adopted over the past five years contain measures that must be adopted over the next decade, in order to allow stakeholders and public authorities time to prepare for the necessary changes. A number of these changes, once implemented, will have significant impacts on waste management and on the economic factors governing waste. The table below summarises these measures.

3.4. Implementation issuesWaste legislation, like much environmental legislation, has long suffered from poor implementation owing to a range of factors. For a long time, waste was a low political priority in much of the EU – the ‘out of sight, out of mind’ principle often applied. In some areas, implementation is poor because although there is correct transposition of Community law into national laws and regulations ‘on paper’, this is not accompanied by action with a significant environmental impact. But the problem is particularly important where the implementation gap includes issues of real concern, like the dumping of waste at mismanaged landfills or shipments of hazardous waste in violation of international conventions. Since these two issues constitute the greatest potential danger to the environment and human health, the Commission focuses its implementation efforts on those.

There is currently no exact inventory of the total number of illegal landfills in the EU, but it seems clear that their numbers run into the thousands. The concept of illegal landfills includes both non-authorised landfills and landfills that, although authorised, are badly managed and do not fulfil the conditions set by EU and national law and therefore constitute an environmental and health hazard. The second priority for implementation, the issue of illegal waste shipments, is becoming a growing problem again, as revealed by recent research and inspections, with potentially damaging effects on the environment, notably from falsely declared shipments to developing countries.


13

Ensuring proper implementation of Community legislation is a task that must be shared between the Member States and the Commission. The Commission has taken a number of steps to improve matters, by discussing issues either bilaterally with the specific Member State concerned or with all Members States when problems are of a more general nature. This is in line with the Commission’s general policy to swiftly and effectively solve implementation problems through contacts with Member States. But for some difficult cases, in particular illegal and mismanaged landfill sites, it has been considered necessary to resort to court proceedings to solve problems.

A number of other specific measures have been taken to address problems on the ground, and actions in this area will continue. On landfills, a study was completed in November 2005 to identify better the scope and range of the problem, and the measures being taken by the competent authorities to deal with the problem14. The national and regional waste management plans are being scrutinised for information. In addition, a number of bilateral meetings have been held with Member States to check the action being taken. The full range of legal action is being used where progress is not satisfactory. On waste shipment, the recent IMPEL-TFS15 reports (Seaport Project, June 2004; Verification Project -1-, Nov. 2004) have brought to light a number of shortcomings in implementation. The recommendations made in these reports are being carefully assessed.

4. OUTSTANDING ISSUES

Despite the progress made in achieving better management of waste, there are still four major issues outstanding, and new policies are needed to tackle them.

1. The legislation on waste adopted by the EU in the past addressed very visible and sometimes acute problems, such as pollution by incinerators and landfills, and required only limited amounts of information. However, this is no longer the case as the EU is seeking to develop waste policies that help to reduce the negative environmental impacts of resource use. Waste generation, and management, recovery and recycling are complex issues and there is a need for more focused information on their environmental impacts. For example, recycling is a very attractive and popular solution for waste management but it is not necessarily always the most favourable way to manage waste. One example is plastics. In many cases waste plastics can be melted and reprocessed for their original use (e.g. as pipes, bottles, etc.) and this has significant benefits. But in other cases, the plastics collected are mixed or contaminated and if reprocessed can only be used in non-technical applications. They then replace other less polluting materials such as wood or concrete. As the production of virgin plastics is not avoided in these cases, the environmental advantages of such recycling are limited. Further policies therefore need to be based on wider information that is currently not available.

2. The amounts of waste generated are increasing at a rhythm that is close to economic growth rates. Preventing waste has the potential to reduce the environmental load of our current pattern of resource use. Therefore there is a clear need to step up efforts to combat these increases in waste generation. As we cannot tackle all wastes at once, and given that all wastes are not equally polluting, policies need to be developed that address the wastes that have the most environmental impact. This is not necessarily obvious for policy-makers. Packaging waste tends to be very high on the political agenda throughout the globe and much is being done to reduce its environmental impact. However, more can be done by also addressing other wastes that are associated with intensive use of resources. For example, studies show that large amounts of food are wasted, and food ranks very highly in terms of environmental impact during life-cycle.

3. Although recycling rates are improving and increasing amounts of energy are recovered from waste, the amounts of recyclable or energy-rich materials that are landfilled or burned in low-energy-efficiency facilities are still high and in some cases are not decreasing. For example, the amounts of paper landfilled or incinerated remained stable between 1990 and 2002 despite significant increases in the amounts recycled. Over the same period, the landfill of plastics increased by 22%, also despite increased recycling. There is thus the potential to increase the use of the resources embedded in waste and to reduce the need for virgin resources, the extraction and use of which can have significant environmental impacts.

14 http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/waste/studies/index.htm

15 A group of specialised waste shipment inspectors from the Member States of the EU.


14

4. The current waste policy model is based on the need for very close controls, in particular on shipments of waste between EU Member States. This model was the appropriate response at a time when there were only limited environmental controls on the waste management sector and manufacturing industry, and low awareness of environmental issues. Nowadays the situation has changed. Not only are stringent EU environmental standards imposed on nearly all waste management practices, but manufacturing industry is also subject to environmental standards. In this new situation, excessive control of waste management can have perverse effects and limit the recycling and recovery of waste under environmentally acceptable conditions. There is thus a need to revisit the legal framework that applies to waste management activities and to reflect on new models that are conducive to better recycling markets.

5. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE THEMATIC STRATEGY ON THE PREVENTION AND RECYCLING OF WASTE

Waste policy has a long and generally successful history. It is now at a crossroads, The emphasis needs to change in order to address the challenges of the future. So the Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste is not a ‘clean sheet’ or a ‘gap filling’ strategy, but rather a chance to take stock and to shift direction in a mature policy area. What is required is evolution rather than revolution, seizing the opportunity to adapt waste policy to new knowledge and new conditions.

Waste should also be seen as one side of the resources/product/waste triangle and this has been the conceptual framework on which the strategy is based

5.1. The resources/product/waste triangleImproving waste management is recognised as a major environmental challenge at international level. The plan of implementation agreed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg, September 2002) builds on Agenda 21 and calls for further action to “prevent and minimise waste and maximise reuse, recycling and use of environmentally friendly alternative materials, with the participation of government authorities and all stakeholders, in order to minimise adverse effects on the environment and improve resource efficiency”16.

The Commission’s proposal for a European Union strategy for sustainable development also highlights the need to break the link between economic growth, the use of resources and the generation of waste17. The European Council meeting in Göteborg (June 2001) concluded that “the relationship between economic growth, consumption of natural resources and the generation of waste must change. Strong economic performance must go hand in hand with sustainable use of natural resources and levels of waste […]”18.This theme is further developed in the Community’s 6th Environmental Action Programme (6EAP)19. This document sets out a vision integrating resource, product and waste policies. It calls for the development of seven thematic strategies, including a strategy on the sustainable use of natural resources and a strategy on the recycling of waste. Since the strategy on waste therefore has to have strong links with the resource strategy, they have been developed and adopted by the Commission together.

As it is impossible to develop policy on waste prevention or recycling in isolation without assessing the wider impacts and what is happening with waste in context, the Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste brings prevention and recycling together and enlarges the scope of the strategy to all the issues related to waste generation and management. It also considers the problems posed to European society by waste generation and management in the context of the wider issue of how we are using increasing amounts of resources. On the one hand, waste generation is one consequence of our pattern of resource use and, on the other hand, the waste generated represents a largely unexploited potential for replacing the use of virgin resources.

16 http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/html/documents/summit_docs/2309_planfinal.htm, in particular paragraph 21.

17 Commission Communication COM (2001) 264 final of 15.5.2001: “A sustainable Europe for a better World: a European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development”.

18 See the Presidency Conclusions available at http://ue.eu.int/en/Info/eurocouncil/index.htm, especially paragraph 31.

19 Decision N° 1600/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 2002 laying down the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme,

OJ L 242, 10.9.2002, p.1.


15

5.2. The preliminary communication: first concepts and first round of consultations

The first step taken by the Commission was to adopt a consultation document in 2003 entitled “Towards a thematic strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste”20. This preliminary communication takes a detailed look at the current situation and trends and presents options for the way forward. It also notes unsustainable developments and areas where change is needed, but remains open as to the way forward. It launches a wide debate on a range of issues, including points that had been previously seen as taboo, such as the definition of waste and the waste hierarchy.

On waste prevention, the preliminary communication launched, for the first time, a consultation process leading to the development of a comprehensive strategy, including an approach to waste prevention targets and the instruments needed to achieve them. The Communication called for very broad discussion, in particular on:

• identifying potential for waste prevention;• exchanging good practices and experience with a view to defining how the EU could

contribute;• examining the role of future chemicals policy as regards qualitative prevention of waste;• exploring how voluntary or mandatory waste prevention plans could contribute to waste

prevention;• assessing the waste prevention potential of the Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention

and Control (IPPC).

It also invited comments on options to promote recycling, in particular on:• developing material-based recycling targets in conjunction with end-of-life product-based

targets;• getting the prices of the different waste treatment options right by using economic instruments,

which could include tradable certificates, co-ordinating national landfill taxes, promoting pay-as-you-throw schemes and making producers responsible for recycling;

• ensuring recycling is both easy and clean. In some cases, implementation of EU waste law has led to unnecessary burdens on the recycling industry, and such problems need to be identified and solved. Moreover, common approaches to recycling should encourage recycling businesses to use the best available technology.

Resources, waste and products – one package

6th EAP6th EAP

Thematic Strategy on the Preventionand Recycling of wasteTowards Communication –May 2003

Integrated Product Policy

Communication – October 2003

Thematic Strategy on Sustainable Use of ResourcesTowards Communication – October 2003

Box 7. Resources, waste and products.

20 COM (2003) 301 final, 27.5.2003


16

This transparent approach was taken from the very beginning, starting with a six-month consultation on the Commission’s Communication COM(2003)301 final towards a thematic strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste, beginning in May 2003. Box 8 shows the principal results. In total the Commission received 220 replies from a wide variety of EU stakeholders. The majority were business organisations, but there was also a significant number of local authorities and NGOs, as well as responses from the Member States at central government level. All the replies are available for consultation on the Commission’s website21. This exercise and the subsequent debate had a significant impact on the final Thematic Strategy. Section 6 analyses the changes made during the two years of preparation.

5.3. Further consultationThe Strategy was developed with considerable input and discussion from Member States and stakeholders. Box 9 shows the various stages of consultation.

Box 8. The main themes from the stakeholder consultation on the preliminary communication

Most of the contributions reacted to points in the preliminary communication, rather than suggesting a separate vision. Key themes were:

• The need to simplify certain provisions and definitions in waste legislation.

• The need to improve waste statistics, data and knowledge.• The need to put in place recycling standards in terms of facilities,

and the steering of waste and recycled products.• A consensus that tradable certificates in waste policy could have

potential, but in the longer term.• Little consensus on the way forward to improve waste prevention,

other than the need to take wider environmental factors into account.

• Some support for material-based measures to take forward recycling, but again in the longer term.

• Significant support for landfill taxes and some support for landfill bans.

21 See http://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/env/waste_strat/library?l=/test&vm=detailed&sb=Title.


17

Publication of the preliminary Communication towards the Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste May 2003

Stakeholder consultation on the questions in the preliminary communication May 2003 – Nov 2003

Informal workshop in Leipzig with Member State experts on issues related to the Waste Framework Directive Feb 2004

Open stakeholder meeting launching the structured stakeholder and expert discussion Feb 2004

Expert meetings on: Waste Framework Directive, waste prevention, recycling standards April 2004

Informal meeting with Member State experts on issues related to prevention and recycling April 2004

Informal Environment Council in Waterford – background paper on the Resources and Waste Thematic Strategies presented. May 2004

Informal joint meeting of the Waste Management Committee and IPPC Experts Group on recycling facility standards and the extension of IPPC May 2004

Stakeholder consultation on the impact assessment for the Thematic Strategy June 2004 – Nov 2004

Member State consultation on the Waste Oils Directive Aug 2004 – Sept 2004

Expert meetings on life cycle thinking, recycling policy Sept 2004

Member State consultation on the Hazardous Waste Directive Sept 2004

Open stakeholder meeting concluding the structured stakeholder and expert discussion Nov 2004

Consultation of the Member States on revision of the Waste Framework Directive Dec 2004 – Jan 2005

Stakeholder consultations on the Hazardous Waste Directive and the Waste Oil Directive Jan 2005 – March 2005

Waste Management Committee meeting on revision of the Waste Framework Directive March 2005

Focussed stakeholder meeting on revision of the Waste Framework Directive March 2005

Box 9. The main actions and events in the run-up to the Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste


18

The consultation exercise on the preliminary communication described in the previous section was followed by a more specific public consultation designed to prepare the extended impact assessment. The questions were designed to get stakeholders to give data and concrete examples of the environmental, economic and social impacts of the various policy options open to the Thematic Strategy. Although the consultation did not yield significant new evidence on the various waste policy options, it did give some specific indications of the potential consequences of action or inaction in a range of fields.

This time there were 80 replies, and these – together with all the consultation documents - are on the Commission’s website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/waste/strategy.htm.

5.4. The Impact Assessment ReportAs an integral part of the policy-making process, it is standard practice for the Commission to produce a report assessing the economic, environmental and social impacts of its policies and legislative proposals. This assessment is contained in the Commission Staff Working Paper: Impact Assessment of the Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste.

From this assessment emerged a set of preferred options that will increase the environmental efficiency and the cost-effectiveness of EU waste policy. These have been included as the building blocks of the strategy. The report is on the Commission’s website22.

6. BUILDING BLOCKS OF THE THEMATIC STRATEGY

Over the three years that the Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste has been under development there has been an extensive and productive dialogue with stakeholders and the EU institutions. As a result, some of the ideas that were originally raised in the preliminary communication were dropped, modified or postponed, while others were adopted. There was further analysis and research in a number of fields to address points that had been raised during the dialogue and consultation exercise. Some of the main points identified as not currently appropriate for action or as requiring further research are discussed below.

The basis for the strategy – focusing on environmental impacts throughout the life-cycle

Too much Landfill ( 60%)

Energyrecovery

Packaging, WEEE, ELV, …

Recyclepaper, plastic, metals ….

RecoverEnergy

Landfill

From Tomuch waste, some waste,

some recycling much recycling

Packaging, WEEE, ELV, …

Box10. A recycling society

22 http://europa.eu.int/prelex/apcnet.cfm?CL=en


19

The Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste is based on two major premises. 1. Waste policy should focus on the environmental impact of using resources. Waste policy should tie in with resources policy – and we know from resources policy that the important issue is not scarcity of resources but the environmental impact of their use.

2. Waste policy should take a life-cycle approach. Waste policy should also tie in with the Integrated Product Policy (IPP). IPP aims to reduce environmental impacts from products throughout their life-cycle, where possible using a market-driven approach. It seeks to integrate the many policies and instruments that affect products during their life-cycles – from eco-design measures and life-cycle assessments through public purchasing and information campaigns to producer-responsibility mechanisms - to encourage greater penetration of the market place by “greener” products. This requires efforts by producers and consumers, and by government. So waste prevention measures or actions to promote waste recycling must not create perverse effects elsewhere in the life cycle.

6.1. Waste policy will help reduce the environmental impacts of using resources The relationship between waste, resources and IPP should be more than just theoretical. Waste policy should illustrate how environmental impact and life-cycle thinking should work in practice. Waste

prevention and recycling policies can reduce three different environmental impacts:

• the impacts of extraction of primary raw materials. For example, recycling metals avoids the hazardous by-products of ore-processing, and since less mining waste needs to be moved reduces CO2 emissions by saving energy;

• air pollution or energy use from the transformation of primary raw materials in production processes;

• emissions from waste disposal installations, e.g. methane emissions from landfills.

Waste prevention and recycling measures need to yield net benefits and reduce the accumulated impacts throughout the life cycle of a resource. This involves political judgements as to the relative ranking of impacts, and prioritisation of which environmental actions should be pursued on the basis of a strategic approach to resources management. The new knowledge base developed in conformity with the principles of the Resources Strategy will help identify the key impacts that waste prevention and recycling can reduce.

A life-cycle approach must be taken to assess how the new waste policy will affect these impacts. For example, it is true that recycled materials should be used in applications where this makes sense. But whereas using separately collected plastics to replace virgin plastics could generate environmental improvement, using these materials to replace concrete in building or in park

benches may not be of any real benefit.

The life-cycle and environmental impact approach is a significant feature of the amendments made to the Waste Framework Directive in the proposal for its revision that is part of the Thematic Strategy package. Not only was this approach built into the objective of the Directive, but it is also being integrated into some of its key operative sections, notably of the preparation of waste management plans and the new waste prevention provisions.

Box 11. A case study on environmental impact thinking: how should the management of biowaste be improved?

In the Sixth Environmental Action Programme, a Directive on the management of biological waste was envisaged in order to encourage and regulate compost and biowaste. However, a careful analysis of the environmental impacts of the biowaste issue revealed that a legal measure of this kind would be disproportionate to the potential benefit. Even at maximum levels the composting of biological waste could not have a significant impact in terms of improving soil quality throughout the EU. A separate collection obligation is therefore not justified. However, it is still beneficial to encourage more composting, and these measures are less costly. To that end, the Thematic Strategy proposes to set standards for when compost ceases to be a waste, and also to include composting plants in the IPPC Directive. These actions will improve the market for compost, and will reduce the environmental impacts of badly run composting plants and poor quality compost.


20

6.2. Economic instrumentsThe preliminary communication noted that economic instruments could be extremely efficient for waste policy, particularly to promote recycling and prevention. A co-ordinated EU landfill tax, for example, could be one of the post powerful tools for promoting landfill diversion but the legal issues surrounding its use remain. Because of the unanimity required for fiscal issues under the EC treaty any such action is unlikely to succeed. The Commission recognises this, but continues to consider that it would be the most effective way to achieve certain objectives.

The preliminary communication also raised the notion of tradable permits, but there was widespread consensus among the stakeholders responding to the consultation that such a scheme would be complex at EU level and that the time was not ripe. In particular, it was felt that the results of the greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme should be analysed before assessing whether such an approach could work in the waste area.

6.3. Further landfill bansAnother topic that received considerable attention in the stakeholder consultation and in the discussions in the European Parliament was the possibility of banning additional waste flows from being placed in landfills. Two main factors influenced the decision of the Commission not to take this option further in the Thematic Strategy package. Firstly, the Landfill Directive already contains a number of such bans, notably on tyres and biodegradable waste, that are due to take effect over the coming years. The impact of these measures seems likely to be substantial and it therefore seems sensible to assess their impact before proceeding to additional waste flows.

Secondly, in a number of the new Member States, and several of the others, landfill remains the dominant waste management option. This situation is changing, but the change needs to be steady and progressive to minimise the short-term negative effects. A pragmatic assessment of the situation indicates clearly that the phasing out of landfill, even for waste which could be handled better by other facilities, cannot be achieved overnight. However, as stated in the Thematic Strategy Communication, if existing landfill diversion measures are found to be insufficient, this option will be revisited.

6.4. Waste prevention The preliminary communication noted that the amount of waste generated depends on a wide and complex range of factors. These include levels of economic activity, demographic changes, technological innovations, life-style and, more generally, patterns of production and consumption23. This means that waste prevention targets do not work when they are used in isolation from product and resource policy, as they have been on occasions.

Secondly, it remains questionable whether weight or volume are always the most appropriate indicators of the environmental burden of waste. In practice the relationship between the generation of waste and its environmental impacts is more complex, since changes in waste generation patterns generally affect not only the quantity of waste generated, but also the type of waste generated. Such changes may also affect impacts at other stages of the product life-cycle, e.g. through changes in product design. For example, moving towards more lightweight packaging does not necessarily reduce the environmental impact of packaging, either during its end-of-life phase or over its entire life-cycle.

At the same time, no obvious alternatives to weight-based targets have emerged over the consultation period since the preliminary communication. The statistical outlook remains the same, since reliable information on waste generation trends will not be available before 2008. This means that setting waste prevention targets before the data has improved would inevitably be a somewhat imprecise exercise.

In addition, it has become clear from the stakeholder consultations and the expert meeting on waste prevention that many aspects of waste prevention are best handled at national, regional or local level. It is questionable to what extent binding EU-level targets are compatible with this finding. At the same time, it is clear that full advantage is not being taken in the EU of the benefits of waste prevention, and this will not happen without some form of catalyst to encourage more effective action and better analysis in support of waste prevention.Action at EU level could help to address the patchy nature of waste prevention work. An EU initiative to encourage the dissemination of best practice from Member States or industrial sectors that have

23 See, for example, OECD, 2002: Household Energy & Water Consumption and Waste Generation: Trends, Environmental Impacts and Policy Responses,

ENV/EPOC/WPNEP(2001)25, Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, pp. 67-62.


21

made the most progress to those that have made the least would help to structure waste prevention work and focus it on those areas where there is most benefit to be gained. Equally, it seems that the EU could play a useful role in encouraging better analysis of environmental impacts prior to decisions being taken on waste prevention actions or programmes, or in the face of inaction on waste prevention.

For all these reasons, it was decided at EU level to opt for a framework approach to waste prevention. Member States will be required to draw up waste prevention programmes, based on best practice, with life-cycle thinking integrated into the decisions they take on the measures to adopt. Review and discussion of these programmes, along with transparency in the way they are produced, should ensure a more integrated approach to the implementation of waste prevention, rather than the ad hoc and piecemeal approach taken by many Member States up to now.

6.5. Encouraging recycling and recovery6.5.1. The waste hierarchy

The Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste does not abolish the waste hierarchy. The waste hierarchy remains an excellent rule of thumb as to which management operations are best for the environment, and it can be a useful proxy where scientific analysis is not possible or proportionate. However, as knowledge about waste increases, more life-cycle analyses and other types of research are available to assess policy options. In other words, decisions on whether to favour a given waste management option or to leave the choice to the market can be analysed and assessed.

So if it seems clear that it is more environmentally efficient to incinerate a material to recover energy than it is to recycle it, then that is the option that should be taken. To give one example, the Thematic Strategy Impact Assessment concludes that whereas, if plastic waste is clean and separated, it is best to recycle, when plastic waste is mixed it is more efficient to incinerate to recover the energy. If the difference in environmental impact between two options is negligible, then in principle the market should be allowed to find the balance between those two options. An example of this can be found in the case study on waste oils below.

Although the Thematic Strategy does not contain concrete measures that primarily aim to promote recycling, that does not mean that such measures will not be necessary again in the future. In addition, action is clearly required on improving the market access for recycled products, and this is outlined in

Section 6.7.

6.5.2. Material or product?

The preliminary communication, in its analysis of the future of recycling, put forward the idea of promoting recycling by material rather than by product, looking at the materials that are not being recycled or recovered despite the clear environmental benefit.

This notion attracted considerable attention and much debate in the stakeholder consultation. There was a clear view that it was too early to assess the impact of the most recent product-based recycling directives, on waste electrical equipment and used cars, so it was not possible to tell whether it was necessary to take further material-based action. In addition there was concern about how material- and product-based measures would interact, and whether this could lead to a double burden for some industries.

Box 12. Reviewing the best option for managing waste oils

Many Member States have failed to implement the priority that is given by the waste oils directive to regeneration (cleaning waste oils so they can be re-used), and this has resulted in lots of infringement cases. However, recent information has shown that there is no significant difference in environmental impact between the regeneration of waste oils and their use as a fuel.

Removing the regeneration priority will allow different technologies, such as incineration to recover energy, to compete on an equal basis in the market with no loss of environmental benefit. And those Member States where it still makes sense to maintain the priority for waste oil regeneration can do so through their national environmental policies. Removing the priority will also allow for renewed focus on waste oil collection rates. This is extremely important as the percentage of waste oils collected is still too low in several Member States even though the improper disposal of waste oils can have substantial environmental impacts.


22

Given this situation, the recent ambitious measures taken to promote recycling such as the electronic waste and end-of-life vehicles directives and the number of key provisions that are due to come into eff ect over the next decade (see Section 3.3) it was felt that it was not necessary for the Th ematic Strategy to contain additional specifi c measures to promote recycling, other than the measures designed to improve the recycling market.

As stated in the preliminary communication, if in fi ve years’ time it becomes clear that the benefi ts of recycling are not being adequately delivered by existing measures and the market, then further action will be taken on a material-by-material basis. It is important to note that such action would not necessarily be based on the principle of producer responsibility. Th ere are many other levers that can be used to improve the economics of recycling for a given material, and a wide assessment would be undertaken to determine the most appropriate.

6.5.3. Th e distinction between recovery and disposal

Th e other defi nition issue that requires clarifi cation is the distinction between recovery and disposal. Th e current defi nition of recovery is unclear and does not refl ect the environmental reality. Th e proposal revising the Waste Framework Directive therefore revises the defi nition of recovery and introduces two corrective mechanisms designed to prevent future blockages of the kind that have made this issue diffi cult over the past few years. Th e new defi nition of recovery and the corrective mechanisms are set out in the box 13.

6.6. Simplifi cation: fi ne tuning to improve implementation6.6.1. Streamlining waste legislation

In the thirty years since the fi rst pieces of European waste legislation were adopted, inevitably some of the provisions have become redundant. Along with more substantive revisions, based on new environmental information (such abolishing the waste oils regeneration priority), there needs to be a certain amount of more textual consolidation. To that end, the strategy entails integrating the Hazardous Waste Directive into the Waste Framework Directive, whilst maintaining the substantive provisions of that Directive. Th e strategy also envisages a similar exercise for the Titanium Dioxide Directives. Th e fi gure below sets out the full range of simplifi cation.

Box 13. Changes to the regulation structure.


23

6.6.2. The definition of waste

In the preliminary communication, the Commission noted that there had been criticism of the definition of waste, and invited stakeholders to make suggestions or to explain the concrete problems that the definition was causing them. The feedback from this consultation revealed that there is a significant consensus in favour of not radically changing the definition of waste. One reasons was that there is no obvious better alternative; another that change would render uncertain the twenty years of case law from the European Court of Justice on application of the definition that has helped to make the situation clearer.

However, two aspects of the definition were highlighted as being unclear. These were the issue of when a waste ceases to be a waste, and to a lesser extent the distinction between waste and non-waste by-products. In order to improve this situation, the revised Waste Framework Directive contains a provision that is designed to clarify “end of waste” status for those waste streams where this would be appropriate, on a stream-by-stream basis. Our analysis is that there are between five and ten waste streams that might benefit from such a clarification. There will be a careful scientific assessment to determine which waste streams might be suitable. Box 14 outlines how this clarification procedure would work, as set out in the Commission’s proposal for revision of the Waste Framework Directive.

THE END OF WASTE CRITERIA PROCEDURE

Step 1 - Commission preparatory workIdentifying eligible waste streams:a) Will there be an environmental benefit?b) Is there a market for the secondary material?

Assessment of draft criteria:a) Take account of environmental risksb) Consult stakeholdersc) Assess impact on environment and marketAND CRITERIA WILL EITHER:a) Facilitate use of the secondary material bySetting a reference pointb) Represent a low environmental riskc) Remove a genuine barrierStep 2 – Commission proposal through comitology

Step 3 – Commission adopts decision containing criteria

Step 4 – Member States implement

THE END OF WASTE CRITERIA PROCEDURE

Step 1 - Commission preparatory workIdentifying eligible waste streams:a) Will there be an environmental benefit?b) Is there a market for the secondary material?

Assessment of draft criteria:a) Take account of environmental risksb) Consult stakeholdersc) Assess impact on environment and marketAND CRITERIA WILL EITHER:a) Facilitate use of the secondary material bySetting a reference pointb) Represent a low environmental riskc) Remove a genuine barrierStep 2 – Commission proposal through comitology

Step 3 – Commission adopts decision containing criteria

Step 4 – Member States implement

Box 14. How the “end of waste” criteria work.


24

6.6.3. The distinction between recovery and disposal

The other definition issue that requires clarification is the distinction between recovery and disposal. The current definition of recovery is unclear and does not reflect the environmental reality. The proposal revising the Waste Framework Directive therefore revises the definition of recovery and introduces two corrective mechanisms designed to prevent future blockages of the kind that have made this issue difficult over the past few years. The new definition of recovery and the corrective mechanisms are set out in the graphic below.

Substitution?

Disposal

Classified disposal?

Efficiency threshold?

Above threshold?

Recovery

no

yes

no

no

yes

yes

yes

no

Comitology procedure

RREECCOOVVEERRYY ++ DDIISSPPOOSSAALL

Box 15. How to distinguish between recovery and disposal

6.7. Why common EU waste standards and an EU recycling market?The issue of the development of common standards for recycling and recovery is central to tomorrow’s waste policy. The EU is at a crossroads as shown by the discussions during the development of the Thematic Strategy and review of the Waste Shipment Regulation. In the next few years, decisions will be made on recovery of waste that will privilege either national standards or European standards. The Commission’s position is that common EU standards are a better solution for the EU both environmentally and economically. The Thematic Strategy seeks to move towards that position.

The relationship between waste and the internal market has always been delicate. Waste for disposal is subject to the proximity principle, so it should be dealt with as close to source as possible. Waste for recovery should be allowed to move freely within the EU, under certain conditions. As the distinction between recovery and disposal is sometimes blurred, the two principles may become confused.

Several Member States, and regional or local authorities, tend towards protectionism in the area of waste. This is why the blocking of shipments relates mostly to exports rather than imports. This reflex can be attributed to a number of factors.

1. Firstly, waste infrastructure is expensive and once built requires fixed minimum volumes of waste to be efficient. Capacities may have to compete with similar but cheaper installations, or with other waste treatment techniques. The diversification of waste recovery and recycling practices in Member States and in industrial sectors, and the effects of enlargement, could increase these competitive pressures. In addition, some investment is based on overestimates of the amounts of waste that will be available in the future, and this creates tensions.


25

2. Secondly, the combination of public and private interests involved in different aspects of the waste business varies from one Member State to another. Environmental arguments are sometimes used to disguise economic motives. The distinction between action to protect the environment and illegitimate economic protectionism is not always clear.

An example should make this clear. In 2004, a company collecting bio-waste from households in one Member State was intending to send it for composting in another Member State. The shipment was blocked by the exporting authorities on the grounds that the destination Member State had lower composting standards than the exporting Member State. The same document noted that there was free capacity in the Member State that was seeking to block the export. Both Member States had composting policies that could objectively be described as advanced.

The notion of waste treatment standards is multi-faceted. It depends on:• which process is the most appropriate for a given waste• the pressures exerted on the environment by a waste management facility• the efficiency of a recovery process• the quality of the output of a recycling operation.

6.7.1. Advantages of common standards

1. Common standards protect the environment in the whole of the EU. National standards apply only in the territory of the few Member States that have them. Any reduction in environmental benefits caused by a few Member States having to lower their high standards would be more than offset by the gain in coverage.

2. Common standards could in the longer term enable us to reduce the complexity of the legislation that controls shipments of waste destined for recovery.

3. Common standards would help to build a strong internal market for recycling and recovery. As with any economic activity, recycling and recovery activities would benefit from an open internal market.

4. For a limited period, in specific cases where large amounts have been invested in facilities state of high environmental quality, it may be legitimate to steer waste towards them to ensure they receive sufficient quantities. But this should be the exception rather than the rule.

5. If one fair standard is applied across the EU, there are few advantages to be gained from ‘competition’ in terms of environmental standards (e.g. Member State A sets a high standard and blocks export to Member State B – Member State B raises its standards in order to regain access to the waste).

6. There is no evidence that an internal market for recovery disproportionately increases the environmental impact of the transport of waste. Research confirms that externalities related to transport are a minor fraction of the overall impact of treating the waste. Waste can be transported large distances, and the efficiency gains from waste going to the ‘right’ facility can outweigh the externalities of transportation.

6.7.2. Risks of the current approach as regards revision of the Waste Shipment Regulation

Article 13 of the draft Regulation on shipment of waste, as agreed by the Council on 28 June 2005, allows the Member States to object to exports of waste if the treatment standards are lower in the Member State of destination. This raises a number of issues.1. With this provision in force Member States that have national standards will be less inclined to

negotiate common EU standards because the adoption of such standards would mean opening up their borders. As the Member States with high national standards are those that are pushing the common standards agenda, the loss of momentum could be significant. We have already seen that Member States are inclined to take a protectionist approach to the steering of waste, and this has led to a number of court cases. Article 13 would facilitate and legitimise such approaches.

2. The notions of lower standards, and some of the other legal issues involved, are not defined and there are clear risks of abuse, litigation and court cases.


26

3. The concept of “lower treatment standards” could be applied to the use of wastes in industry facilities or in manufacturing certain products. Thus this provision could affect EU economic activities well beyond pure waste management, particularly as there is some evidence that some Member States might seek to apply this even to green waste, like PVC for example. Once this provision is in force some Member States or regions could close their borders to shipments of wastes for which they have national standards. This could have major impacts on industries that use waste as a fuel or raw material.

6.7.3. Various EU measures could be combined to build a set of common waste standards

The following table lists the waste management standards we have and those we need.

Defining the best process (steering waste)

Avoiding emissions from waste facilities

Ensuring process efficiency is high

Avoiding risks from recycled materials

What we have

WEEE, ELV and Packaging Directives

Landfill Directive

Incineration Directive

IPPC covers some processes

IPPC reference documents (BREFs)(but no real coverage of efficiency of processes)

Chemical legislation

Substance bans in waste legislation

What we need

Targets for materials

Guidelines for sham recovery

Batteries Directive (in the pipeline)

Extend scope of IPPC Directive to more processes where justified

Adopt efficiency criteria for recovery

Better BREFs

REACH (proposal for new chemicals Regulation)

End of waste criteria for other cases

Box 16. Waste management standards.

These instruments apply or would apply at various stages of the waste disposal and recovery chain as illustrated in the chart.

6.8. The relationship between waste hierarchy and impact thinking6.8.1. Recycling and recovery

Without a doubt, producer responsibility has been one of the major waste policy initiatives of the last decade. It has transformed the handling of certain key waste streams and created structures that have put recycling firmly on the map.

The Directives on packaging and packaging waste, end-of-life vehicles and electrical and electronic waste have raised the profile of waste as an issue and led to the creation of recycling solutions that would not otherwise have existed. In addition, producer responsibility has had a positive impact upon the way products are designed. By placing the costs of recycling principally with producers, it encourages them to design their products differently to make recycling easier and therefore less expensive. Hence we now have cars that are designed to be dismantled, and packaging that is thinner and made of one type of plastic rather than two or more.

However, the circumstances under which these policies were set up are beginning to change. We now need to deal with waste streams that are more complex and have more producers involved. We also want the effects to be broader: instead of just design for recycling, we would, for example, like to see more design for the environment.


27

Within the context of life-cycle thinking and the Integrated Product Policy approach, which seeks to minimise the negative environmental impacts of products “from cradle to grave”, we want recycling to move from being the exception to becoming the preferred option for waste management.

But can this transformation be achieved by further waste-stream or product-based producer responsibility directives? A number of factors would seem to indicate not. For one, the existing directives based on waste-stream-related producer responsibility altogether cover only 7% of total waste volumes. This is for good reasons: these Directives were designed to solve specific problems. Nevertheless, this indicates that if we want to have a wider effect, we will have to think about whether this is possible through “more of the same”. Secondly, waste-stream-based directives cost a lot to implement, both financially and in terms of administrative capacity.

The Commission’s Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste, which will be decided in 2005, will look at the full range of measures available to promote recycling, while working with the market: direct support, demand-side actions, taxes, and so on. However, producer responsibility and recycling targets remain a tried and tested way of facilitating the necessary changes. One option that might allow continued progress and at the same time reduce some of the rigidities of the approach used so far is a move to material-based policies. Taking paper as an example, it does not seem entirely logical that packaging paper (60% of the waste stream) is covered by a recycling target and producer responsibility system, but that other types of paper are not.

Obviously, the move from a product or waste stream focus to a material focus would need to be an evolution, rather than a revolution, over a number of years so that there can be a smooth transition. We want to reduce and not increase complexity, so we need to make existing legislation work first.

To a certain extent the two approaches already co-exist at the EU level. Packaging targets are organised along material lines, and some voluntary initiatives, such as the recycling commitment of the PVC industry, are also material-based. In addition, some countries both inside and outside the EU have adopted material-based approaches for specific waste streams.

The Thematic Strategy will provide an excellent opportunity to take producer responsibility and make it fit the needs of the next decade, both for waste policy and for the messages that are emerging on the sustainable use of natural resources. We must make sure that we seize this opportunity.

Box 17. EU standards applied along the waste management chain.


yes no

SteeringWaste Pre-treatment

Final disposal

Final recovery Chemical change ?

Recycledmaterial

or substance

BesttreatmentDirectives

ShipmentRegulationGuidelines

IPPCEmissions

LandfillincinerationDirectives

End of wastecriteria

Risk assessmentssafety information

IncinerationWEEE ELV

directiveDoes Reach apply?

no

yes

Recycledmaterial

or substance

Recycledmaterial

or substance

R and Ddefinitionsefficiency

28

7. NEXT STEPS

With the adoption of the Strategy and its accompanying legislative proposal the EU has entered into the decision-making process that will begin the implementation of the Strategy. This process can be followed on the Commission’s website.27

A number of further measures are planned for the next years as shown in Box 18 at the end of this section. This includes new legislative proposals, a series of guidelines, technical regulation and reports.

Finally, the review of the Strategy in 2010 will, if necessary, identify the additional measures necessary to promote waste prevention and apply life-cycle thinking to waste management and to progress towards a European recycling society.

Box 18. Calendar of additional actions to implement the Thematic Strategy and other measures and activities that will contribute to the objectives of the strategy

Additional actions proposed or planned by the Thematic Strategy TimingReport on the implementation of Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste

2005

Review of the targets set under Directive 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles

2006

Proposal for revision of Directive 86/278/EC on the use of sewage sludge in agriculture

2006

Proposal for a Directive bringing the three directives on waste from the titanium dioxide industry together into one directive

2006

Publication of guidelines for Member States on applying life cycle thinking to the management of biodegradable waste that is diverted from landfill

2006

Improving the knowledge base on impacts of resource use, waste generation and waste management and more systematic forecasting and modelling

Starting in 2006

Proposal for the clarification and extension of the scope of the IPPC Directive to additional waste management activities, including biological treatment for recovery of waste, preparation of hazardous waste for incineration and of incineration slags for recovery

2007, when the IPPC Directive will be subject to a general review

Publication of basic guidelines to make life-cycle tools easily usable in waste policy making, with an agreed approach and methodology

2007

Publication of guidelines on certain provisions of the waste shipment regulation to combat sham recovery

2007

Publication of guidelines on minimum environmental standards for permits of installations that are not covered by the IPPC Directive and on Best Available Techniques for the mixing of hazardous waste

2007

Assessment of the state of play and of the need for additional measures to stimulate the move to a European recycling society

2007

Review of the targets under Directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical and electronic equipment

2008

Adoption of a first set of quality standards for defining when certain waste flows cease to be waste, starting with compost and recycled aggregates

After entry into force of the revised Waste Framework Directive

Other related measures and activities

Market developmentSeveral Member States have launched initiatives for the development of the waste recycling market, aiming at removing technical and economic obstacles to recycling and at increasing the demand for recycled materials (e.g. development of standards, improving availability of market relevant information, public procurement). Such approaches appear to have some potential to complement core recycling policies, and could be taken on board in national roadmaps for the implementation of the Environmental Technology Action Plan.

Research and technologyThe Commission will ensure that the European funds available for research and development of waste technology better tackle the key environmental impacts of wasteBest practicesThe Commission will support the dissemination and transfer of best practices concerning awareness, education and incentive initiatives and systems developed at national, regional and local level

State aidThe guidelines on state aid for environmental protection will be reviewed. This review will inter alia clarify the cases in which state aids may be granted to support waste recycling activities

27 http://europa.eu.int/prelex/apcnet.cfm?CL=en


29

8. CONCLUSION: WASTE POLICIES MUST CONTRIBUTE TO IMPROVED RESOURCE USE The Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste will help the EU adopt more sustainable patterns of resource use. The aim is to move closer to a society that is not wasteful and manages waste according to the following principles.

• A good knowledge base informs waste policySubstantial knowledge on the environmental impacts of the use of resources throughout their life-cycle exists in the EU. This feeds in to waste policy, which then addresses priority areas where waste prevention and recycling can really help reduce the overall impact of resource use. All legislative and non-legislative measures aim to limit environmental impacts of waste generation and management and take a life-cycle approach.

• Waste prevention policies work towards a common goalEuropean and national waste prevention policies are developed within a common framework. They aim to reduce the overall environmental impact of resource use by addressing priority wastes which exert significant environmental pressures. National policies provide producers and consumers with flexible solutions well adapted to their needs. This is achieved inter alia through implementation of the IPPC Directive and of REACH, better design of products, and informed – corporate and private – consumer decisions. Eco-design of products is strengthened through IPP measures, e.g. the directive on energy-using products, and better market opportunities for greener products.

• An overall eco-efficient recycling policy covers all waste materialsLegislation and economic instruments promote environmentally favourable recycling of waste materials from all sources, e.g. both packaging and print paper, plastics from construction and cars, etc. This global approach to waste recycling enables the EU to recycle waste materials at levels that have been proven to deliver substantial environmental benefits. It allows maximum flexibility for Member States and industry to ensure that the environmental benefits of recycling are captured at the lowest cost. Where necessary, systems have been put in place that involve economic operators – material producers or others –in recycling policies with a view to minimising implementation costs.

• Waste recycling operates with high environmental standards in an open marketA level playing field is achieved in which all European waste management facilities are operating to high environmental standards. Recycled materials are recognised as useful resources and respond to quality standards. Consequently, the internal market in waste recycling is functioning well in a simplified regulatory environment and our economy is moving from a waste model to a recycling model.


30




Documents

EU WASTE POLICY - European Commissionec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/story_book.pdfEU WASTE POLICY European Commission Story book waste12.indd 1 13/12/2005 10:03:14 Story book waste12.indd